Post two questions/comments in response to the reading
Posted by Capper Nichols on February 2, 2006 07:50 AM|Permalink
Comments
The author writes how the Wisconsin Legislature passed the Soil Conservation District Law and that no farmer had created even one law within a decade. I wonder, was this law well advertised (did the farmers know about and understand it) and is it still in existance today or has it been repealed since this "The Land Ethic" was written in 1948.
The three basic ideas of land as an energy circuit are listed by the author as "1. the land is not merely soil 2. that the native plants and animals kept the energy circuit open 3. that man-made changes are of a different order than evolutionary changes, and have effects more comprehensive that is intended or foreseen" These are powerful and, I believe, very accurate statements. Have they made it to anywhere besides this article though?
In the article, Aldo Leopold writes, "There is as yet no ethic dealing with man's relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it." Is this still true today, or have we begun to develop a set of ethic principals towards the land and animals since Leopold's time?
It is my feeling that we have in fact come a long ways in building a sort of "environmental ethic", both politically and socially in the past fifty some years. Nowdays, if you were to ask almost anyone if we had an ethic responsibility towards conserving nature, they would probably say yes. However, I also feel that there is a lot of progress that can still be made.
What happened during the settlement of the Mississippi valley?
Leopold writes, "In the years following the Revolution, three groups were contending for its control: the native Indian, the French and English traders, and the American settlers. Historians wonder what would have happened if the English at Detroit had thrown a little more weight into the Indian side of those tipsy scales which decided the outcome of the colonial migration into the cane-lands of Kentucky." I am unfamiliar with what happened during this settlement. I get the feeling that Kentucky would have a different identity today if things had been different though.
Leopold discusses the three basic ideas of the energy sketch. Idea number two: That the native plants and animals kept the energy circuit open; others may or may not. How could plants and animals not keep the energy circuit open? There is always a flow through them: whether it's to another plant/animal or back into the soil to be consumed by another plant.
I especially appreciated Leopold's idea that what he calls the land ethic is arrived at as a result of an evolution of ethics. It is both a possibility and a necessity. I am inclined to think of it as more of a necessity. The word Possibility implies that human enlightenment will establish a land ethic. I look at the events leading up to the Environmental Movement in this country and see looming ecological disaster as the impetus for establishing it.
Leopold also writes:
"The ordinary citizen today assumes that science knows what makes the community clock tick; the scientist is equally sure that he does not."
As a student of the Environmental Sciences, I find this to be an especially frustrating reality. I can elaborate on this in class if need be.
I wonder what the author was thinking when he said people would have to truely love and value the land before conservation could progress. How could he expect the people of a nation built upon the economic use of the land to do mcuh else but value it economically, especialy when he wrote the document. but perhaps he didn't really expect to changes anybody's outlook but rather simply give them something to think about.
I feel that, while Aldo Leopold was ahead of his time in his thinking, we have come a long way since his time. with the developement of the EPA and the expansion of both the National parks and wildlife refuge systems and their state-level counter parts.
Based on only what is written it doesn't seem like the Swift county had many regulations before the dairy started its process to build. I think there are more regulations than what the article is revealing. If there isn't, there should have been. The county I am from built a 3,000 cow dairy farm in 2002. However, it took the owners seven years before they finalized everything and started building.
My second comment relates to the last paragraph of the article. It is true that the majority of the workers will be migrant laborers. I'm not sure what the pay is in this operation, but the dairy in my county pays $12 an hour and laborers work 4 10's per week. Like any large business operation, there are always both positives and negatives. The question is which one outweighs the other?
Leopold states, “The characteristics of the land determined the facts quite as potently as the characteristics of the men who lived on it.” I found this statement really interesting because we focus so much on what men have done to change the land to fit our needs, however, I don’t think it is considered as much what role the land had in changing our use.
I really enjoyed Leopold’s discussion on the need for better education on the matter of environmental issues and conscience. It made me feel as though we have really come a long way, which feels great. I know that my parents, who are in their sixties, were never taught about environmental issues in school, whereas I was taught about global warming and loss of rainforest in my earliest years of grade school. Also, at the University level there are entire schools dedicated to this discipline (with classes similar to this one), which is extremely encouraging.
Lastly, he states that “…evidence had to be economic in order to be valid.” I hate to say it but I believe that this is still often the case today. Very few issues get dealt with and resolved due to economic concern. This is truly a never-ending problem. When is the land more important than money?
I find it interesting the parallels that are drawn between Leopold and Cronon. Leopold discusses how predators are allowed protection only if there is an economic benefit (weeding out the weak animals so that the herds are more productive). Cronon frequently discusses how the Europeans view of the land is based on personal gains and a better economy beyond personal survival and the well being of nature. It seems it always relays back to economics. My second comment is how Leopold articulately describes the plight of our natural world, but it takes a more alarmist account, such as Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" to really get the public's attention to turn to environmental problems.
I think it is absurd that the people in the neighboring towns think that the lagoon system will definitly pollute their water. They have no reason to assume that just because it is so big that it will automatically pollute their water.
In the end of the article it states that people are concerned about if the dairy goes up it will create low paying jobs that will go mostly to migrant workers. But these days dairies of this size take people who have education and that are up to date with technology. This farm will create jobs and could help out the locals.
I was unaware of how few classes bear the ecological name before Aldo brought it to my attention. I was wondering if there are any (besides this course) that also discuss land use and ecology in depth?
Also I was wondering what the main reason that most land use is determined by its economic use, is it a lack of ecological understanding of the individual, or the disregard of such education?
I guess I didn't agree with the statement, "The relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but no obligations" The land my family owns is taken care of very well and is used for nothing more than recreation. I believe others who use their land for farming take on a huge obligation of production even though their production also plays into economics, but to say that there is no obligation is silly.
Also, when the reading mentioned something about the largest and most beautiful species being expirtated, is that to suggest that natural selection doesnt exist? I was confused about it I guess.
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.
Comments
The author writes how the Wisconsin Legislature passed the Soil Conservation District Law and that no farmer had created even one law within a decade. I wonder, was this law well advertised (did the farmers know about and understand it) and is it still in existance today or has it been repealed since this "The Land Ethic" was written in 1948.
The three basic ideas of land as an energy circuit are listed by the author as "1. the land is not merely soil 2. that the native plants and animals kept the energy circuit open 3. that man-made changes are of a different order than evolutionary changes, and have effects more comprehensive that is intended or foreseen" These are powerful and, I believe, very accurate statements. Have they made it to anywhere besides this article though?
Posted by: Katie Hausladen | February 2, 2006 10:26 AM
In the article, Aldo Leopold writes, "There is as yet no ethic dealing with man's relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it." Is this still true today, or have we begun to develop a set of ethic principals towards the land and animals since Leopold's time?
It is my feeling that we have in fact come a long ways in building a sort of "environmental ethic", both politically and socially in the past fifty some years. Nowdays, if you were to ask almost anyone if we had an ethic responsibility towards conserving nature, they would probably say yes. However, I also feel that there is a lot of progress that can still be made.
Posted by: Katrina Hopkins | February 2, 2006 01:17 PM
What happened during the settlement of the Mississippi valley?
Leopold writes, "In the years following the Revolution, three groups were contending for its control: the native Indian, the French and English traders, and the American settlers. Historians wonder what would have happened if the English at Detroit had thrown a little more weight into the Indian side of those tipsy scales which decided the outcome of the colonial migration into the cane-lands of Kentucky." I am unfamiliar with what happened during this settlement. I get the feeling that Kentucky would have a different identity today if things had been different though.
Leopold discusses the three basic ideas of the energy sketch. Idea number two: That the native plants and animals kept the energy circuit open; others may or may not. How could plants and animals not keep the energy circuit open? There is always a flow through them: whether it's to another plant/animal or back into the soil to be consumed by another plant.
Posted by: Emily Schroeder | February 2, 2006 07:31 PM
I especially appreciated Leopold's idea that what he calls the land ethic is arrived at as a result of an evolution of ethics. It is both a possibility and a necessity. I am inclined to think of it as more of a necessity. The word Possibility implies that human enlightenment will establish a land ethic. I look at the events leading up to the Environmental Movement in this country and see looming ecological disaster as the impetus for establishing it.
Leopold also writes:
"The ordinary citizen today assumes that science knows what makes the community clock tick; the scientist is equally sure that he does not."
As a student of the Environmental Sciences, I find this to be an especially frustrating reality. I can elaborate on this in class if need be.
Posted by: Tristan Beaster | February 2, 2006 08:42 PM
I wonder what the author was thinking when he said people would have to truely love and value the land before conservation could progress. How could he expect the people of a nation built upon the economic use of the land to do mcuh else but value it economically, especialy when he wrote the document. but perhaps he didn't really expect to changes anybody's outlook but rather simply give them something to think about.
I feel that, while Aldo Leopold was ahead of his time in his thinking, we have come a long way since his time. with the developement of the EPA and the expansion of both the National parks and wildlife refuge systems and their state-level counter parts.
Posted by: Charlie Peterson | February 2, 2006 09:42 PM
Based on only what is written it doesn't seem like the Swift county had many regulations before the dairy started its process to build. I think there are more regulations than what the article is revealing. If there isn't, there should have been. The county I am from built a 3,000 cow dairy farm in 2002. However, it took the owners seven years before they finalized everything and started building.
My second comment relates to the last paragraph of the article. It is true that the majority of the workers will be migrant laborers. I'm not sure what the pay is in this operation, but the dairy in my county pays $12 an hour and laborers work 4 10's per week. Like any large business operation, there are always both positives and negatives. The question is which one outweighs the other?
Posted by: Jamie Seitzer | February 2, 2006 11:08 PM
Leopold states, “The characteristics of the land determined the facts quite as potently as the characteristics of the men who lived on it.” I found this statement really interesting because we focus so much on what men have done to change the land to fit our needs, however, I don’t think it is considered as much what role the land had in changing our use.
I really enjoyed Leopold’s discussion on the need for better education on the matter of environmental issues and conscience. It made me feel as though we have really come a long way, which feels great. I know that my parents, who are in their sixties, were never taught about environmental issues in school, whereas I was taught about global warming and loss of rainforest in my earliest years of grade school. Also, at the University level there are entire schools dedicated to this discipline (with classes similar to this one), which is extremely encouraging.
Lastly, he states that “…evidence had to be economic in order to be valid.” I hate to say it but I believe that this is still often the case today. Very few issues get dealt with and resolved due to economic concern. This is truly a never-ending problem. When is the land more important than money?
Posted by: Carla Inderrieden | February 2, 2006 11:19 PM
If Leopold had written this Land Ethic in 2005, would the content be much different?
Was Leapold's view of land ethic shared with others of his time?
Posted by: Becca Haack | February 2, 2006 11:27 PM
I find it interesting the parallels that are drawn between Leopold and Cronon. Leopold discusses how predators are allowed protection only if there is an economic benefit (weeding out the weak animals so that the herds are more productive). Cronon frequently discusses how the Europeans view of the land is based on personal gains and a better economy beyond personal survival and the well being of nature. It seems it always relays back to economics. My second comment is how Leopold articulately describes the plight of our natural world, but it takes a more alarmist account, such as Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" to really get the public's attention to turn to environmental problems.
Posted by: Mike Bush | February 2, 2006 11:43 PM
I think it is absurd that the people in the neighboring towns think that the lagoon system will definitly pollute their water. They have no reason to assume that just because it is so big that it will automatically pollute their water.
Posted by: Marc Huneke | February 3, 2006 08:17 AM
In the end of the article it states that people are concerned about if the dairy goes up it will create low paying jobs that will go mostly to migrant workers. But these days dairies of this size take people who have education and that are up to date with technology. This farm will create jobs and could help out the locals.
Posted by: Adam Dicke | February 3, 2006 08:21 AM
I was unaware of how few classes bear the ecological name before Aldo brought it to my attention. I was wondering if there are any (besides this course) that also discuss land use and ecology in depth?
Also I was wondering what the main reason that most land use is determined by its economic use, is it a lack of ecological understanding of the individual, or the disregard of such education?
Posted by: Nick Miller | February 3, 2006 09:26 AM
I guess I didn't agree with the statement, "The relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but no obligations" The land my family owns is taken care of very well and is used for nothing more than recreation. I believe others who use their land for farming take on a huge obligation of production even though their production also plays into economics, but to say that there is no obligation is silly.
Also, when the reading mentioned something about the largest and most beautiful species being expirtated, is that to suggest that natural selection doesnt exist? I was confused about it I guess.
Posted by: Amanda Melhorn | February 3, 2006 10:34 AM
Hello makakas!!!
> [url=So many spammers here :(
][/url]
Posted by: Zerita | February 1, 2007 12:50 AM
Hi!
[url=thanks for sharing][/url]
Posted by: Crad | February 13, 2007 01:20 AM
divx films download
Posted by: Acrisioniades | February 16, 2007 12:31 PM
Some nice stuff...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >buy generic biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy generic biagra[/url]
Posted by: biagra | August 4, 2007 12:16 AM